Tortured JustificationThe ends do not excuse the means, and Congress should challenge the Bush administration’s rationalisation of torture

Today US representative John Conyers hosts a hearing on the Bush administration’s love affair with torture. Conyers, who appears to be one of the only US politicians actively pursuing the question of the government’s torture policy, has called the hearing in order to discuss the now infamous “torture memo”, penned in 2003 by then Bush attorney John Yoo. Yoo, as well as several other former and current administration water carriers, declined Conyers’ invitation, but even if Yoo had managed the trip from his Berkeley Law School office he likely wouldn’t have said anything worth hearing. What he undoubtedly would have done, however, is reaffirm one of the most telling lessons of the Bush administration: never mistake sobriety of tone for sanity of thought.

Let’s look at the most recent torture revelation. Last week a previously unreleased letter from United States deputy assistant attorney general Brian Benczkowski soberly stated: “The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of an act.”

The acts alluded to are, of course, the still shadowy interrogation techniques that the Bush administration permits the CIA to use against its adversaries. Let’s bracket the slippery language of the statement — “threatened”, “reasonable” and “outrageousness” are all promiscuous words easily parsed for convenience’s sake — and look at the US government’s not so muted reliance on intention, something that has long been a component of its rationalisation for using “coercive interrogation” (which has evidently become the American English pronunciation of the word “torture”). For many people incarcerated by the US, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The Bush administration hopes that the intentionality of its interrogators actions will diminish the criminal nature of the acts should any CIA operative ever be called into court. This is a vigorous, pre-emptive washing of hands — a rhetorical exculpation and mitigation of responsibility. Given the crooked timber of international law, this may fly, legally. Morally, logically, though, it’s corrupt.

The confusion here lies between the intended action and desired result. Torture isn’t incidental, and you can’t torture by accident. Interrogators fully intend the infliction of emotional and physical anguish, but they maintain that what they hope to glean from such barbarity isn’t merely the satisfaction of pain and anguish. In addition to this perverse surplus value, the US government relentlessly stresses that knowledge gained through pain is useful and nobly obtained.

The efficacy of torture is, of course, doubtful. In fact, most experts in the field claim that information gained through physical or emotional coercion fails to provide much actionable intelligence. Despite this evidence, however, the seduction of “ticking bomb” scenarios persists, and not merely as a plot device in second-rate films.

That the argument from intention so often crops up has a great deal to do with how a democracy can and can’t stomach its torture. On its face, the concept of torture appears inimical to democracy, but history argues otherwise — before the US in Iraq and Cuba, there was the US in the Philippines, France in Algeria, and I’m sure that, for a certain period, the sun never set on British torture. The list goes on. While ostensibly democratic regimes can sacrifice the dignity of non-nationals (or in the case of Jose Padilla, non-white citizens), appearing arbitrary in the application of this power imperils the legitimacy of a government that purports to act on behalf of its citizens. Americans, notwithstanding some of our sadistic cultural exports, don’t want to think of their nation as one that hunts to hurt. Thus, this emphasis on intention is the velvet glove slipped over the steel fist of recent US history.

And it’s working. Despite frequent, creepy revelations of executive branch malfeasance and legal sophistry, despite an international power that categorises the Geneva Conventions are “quaint”, despite repeated evidence of torture doesn’t work in time-sensitive scenarios, the issue receives very little sustained attention. The three remaining presidential contenders have avoided substantive public discussion of this issue. As we’ve seen today, Bush operatives refuse to answer questions even when posed by the US Congress. And we seem to be OK with it. This is, quite literally, a shame. Although most Americans, me included, will continue living our comfortable versions of the American dream, the persistence of a US torture regime allows the rot to set it. Not to put too fine a point on it, but torture’s presence in a democracy indicates liberalism’s absence.

Michael Washburn is the assistant director of The Center for the Humanities at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. He is a regular contributor to The New York Observer’s Review of Books.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

31 Comments so far

curmudgeon99 May 6th, 2008 2:25 pm

This is a piece that won’t see the light of day in the American MSM.

And it is 100% true and germane.

The uneducated majority have been frightened into ‘going along’ with the illegal and immoral torture policies.

kloro May 6th, 2008 2:37 pm

“And we seem to be OK with it.” speak for self. there are those aware of their heritage.

militantliberal May 6th, 2008 2:44 pm

Torturing terrorist suspects or other enemies of the state is too obviously righteously patriotic to be questioned. We need to know more about which Wright sermons Obama attended and about happens at Britney’s custody hearing.

elmysterio May 6th, 2008 3:28 pm

militantliberal You are so right… Wright and Britney are weapons of mass distraction aimed at keeping the public in the dark about the crime family known as the US government. The sad part is that most people fall for it.

OldBadgertoo May 6th, 2008 3:45 pm

What is so often neglected is the popular support for torture, which politicians are very well aware of. When tv heroes like Jack Bauer are applauded for their willingness to murder and torment, when psychopaths like Dexter are turned into heroes because they “only kill killers”, you know you’re facing a lust for blood in the general population which only war and torture can sate. Though quite possibly the current flows the other way, and the state of mind which welcomes such vicarious vengeance has been deliberately fostered in order to support our so-called civilisation’s wars.

Arvy May 6th, 2008 4:10 pm

Let’s bracket the slippery language of the statement — “threatened”, “reasonable” and “outrageousness” are all promiscuous words easily parsed for convenience’s sake — and look at the US government’s not so muted reliance on intention, something that has long been a component of its rationalisation for using “coercive interrogation” (which has evidently become the American English pronunciation of the word “torture”).

It has long been a component of US rationalisation for most of its outrageous acts. It is, for example, virtually the only component of US “liberation” that distinguishes it from the “terrorism” of its opponents — apart from sheer scale, that is.

Unfortunately for USans, their (allegedly) well-meaning intentions are often difficult to discern amongst all that “depleted” uranium, napalm, “whiskey pete” and cluster bombs. And it’s doubly difficult to find much solace in “liberation” that very often seems worse than its antecedent.

In the circumstances, it’s small wonder that most people throughout the world prefer to avoid any such “well intentioned” assistance and tend to resist it when thrust upon them.

Galen May 6th, 2008 4:21 pm

It’s only torture when it’s done to John McCain…

frank1569 May 6th, 2008 4:53 pm

Someone might wanna ask McCain about that, actually - if the North Vietnamese believed he had information that they needed to “protect the homeland,” would he agree that his being tortured was legal and moral?

And let’s not forget that “we” pay to watch torture, whether it’s “24″ or the “Saw” torture-tainment series, which has already grossed over $500M, with parts V and VI on the way. Another example - “The Passion of the Christ” was basically a total torture flick and it grossed over $370M. Wonder why we don’t even blink when we hear about some “foreigner” being water-tortured…

Meanwhile, looks like this one has vanished forever: “In light of the national debate about the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) destruction of video recordings, the report proves that the two CIA tapes that were destroyed were only a tiny fraction of perhaps 24,000 recorded interrogations.”

That’s approximately 30 “interrogations” per “detainee”…

eileenfleming May 6th, 2008 4:59 pm

Only those that loose touch with their own humanity are able to torture another being and Military Occupation is at the root of much evil.

In January 2006, while I was in Ramallah, I met with Ala Jaradat, spokesperson for ADAMEER which is Arabic for conscience.

He told me a lot, but what hit me the hardest was when he connected some dots:

“The methods and photos from Abu Grahib and Guantanamo were no shock to any Palestinian who had been in prison between 1967 and the ‘80’s. All the methods used in Abu Grahib were normal procedures against Palestinians.”

Talking about five years of military occupation in Iraq without understanding the 40 years in Palestine is limited thinking.

Eileen Fleming, Reporter and Editor WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author “Keep Hope Alive” and “Memoirs of a Nice Irish American ‘Girl’s’ Life in Occupied Territory”
Producer “30 Minutes With Vanunu” and “13 Minutes with Vanunu”

elmysterio May 6th, 2008 5:20 pm

Galen Said: It’s only torture when it’s done to John McCain…

The question remains whether or not McCain was ACTUALLY tortured. From accounts that I have read, it seems like John rolled over for his captures pretty quickly and easily, earning himself the codename “songbird”… Therefore, do we know FOR SURE that Mr. McCain was in fact, tortured?

Rebel Farmer May 6th, 2008 5:34 pm

Eileen Fleming: Thanks for the perspective from Palestine!

The point is that America has ALWAYS tortured in the name of its interests. What is happening now has been happening for a hundred years or more. The only difference is that the powers that be have decided that the American public is now willing to accept public knowledge and responsibility for the torture. The powers that be have now instiled enough fear in the American people that they are willing to give up their freedoms AND their morality. Mission accomplished.

JB Cracker May 6th, 2008 5:34 pm

curmudgeon99 says,

“The uneducated majority have been frightened into ‘going along’ with the illegal and immoral torture policies.”

Lately myself, I’m concerned more about the educated minority of collaborateurs who continue to run this pathetically selfish show.

For most of us today, anyone who currently profits(?) from nearly any so-called legitimate(?) career activity, sanctioned by such a transparently fake, global(?) economy needs to take a very hard look in the mirror and connect the dots.

Simply because some people advocate slow suicide for them self and all of their loved ones, am I really obligated to support that decision?

Is humanity’s unwavering belief in our, surely seen by now, lifestyle(?) choice of self-destruction really necessary or merely a lack of imagination when considering the facts? Is it truly impossible to discover a better way for human beings to coexist on this planet than what is happening?

No, I refuse to call it a reasonable response to human nature, the human condition, when there is so obviously nothing at all natural about it. Acknowledge it to be simply a profound lack of imagination, an ability only most recently not promoted by society or taught in school anymore; unless of course to serve as handmaiden to it’s own destruction.

So if you must fear, fear those you see among us who know all this but continue to say and do nothing. They are who block our way forward, who colonize and then profit from the imagination of all of us; not the “uneducated majority.”

Find peace in your own creativity, and share it.

Rebel Farmer May 6th, 2008 5:47 pm

A little off topic, but related to some of the “24″ comments.

I remember seeing a movie called “Missouri Breaks” with Marlen Brando (?) back in the mid 70’s. I had to leave the theater because I became nauseated by the violence. I literally was going to throw up. The theater even offered to give me back my money for my ticket.

When I viewed films in school of the Nazi atrocities, I didn’t get nauseated. I was outraged. I knew that this violence and torture was morally wrong. Nobody had to define torture for me. I just knew it instinctively.

When I was growing up, my mother would not let me go see Janet Leigh in the shower scene. Everyone else I knew was aware of the Bate’s Motel. My mother knew that it wasn’t good for young people to see this kind of violence in this venue. That it was unhealthy for me in some way.

So what has changed? I haven’t. And my mother is dead. I still cannot watch any movie or news item that depicts violence without nausea or outrage. So what has made it possible in modern America that this human instinct has been dulled or eliminated?

I truely don’t know the answer.

Rebel Farmer May 6th, 2008 5:57 pm

JB Cracker: Very wise observation.

Something else I had drummed into me as a kid: “The ends nver justify the means”. I think this was usually attached to something related to communism, but it always stuck with me as a general rule. Like the Golden Rule. Once somebody said to me “You don’t care about money”. I thought about that, and replied “I like money well enough. I find it rather useful. But I also care about where it comes from and how I get it”. I guess the point is that because I cared about how I got money, it was judged that I didn’t care about money. I think there is something deep to discover here, I just don’t know exactly what it is.

greenerthanthou May 6th, 2008 6:33 pm

Yeah, Rebel Farmer, my dad wouldn’t let me watch horror movies or violent movies. I had the same experience when I went to see a Sam Peckinpah movie. It had a Bob Dylan song, Knocking on heaven’s Door, or something. I thought it would be OK, but I had to leave because it made me sick.

However. I now can watch those kind of movies. I have been desensitized. That is the point of these movies, I believe. We are bathed in violence and we are taught that violence is the correct answer to any problem. I remember seeing a movie with Harrison Ford where he’s on an Amish farm and the bad guys come and all the Amish come unarmed to stand with him. Cool, I thought. But, no. There had to be gunplay and violence to resolve the issue.

Americans have been subjected to massive propaganda. It works.

I think it’s worse for a child to see these images. Their developing brain will then have the images in it. Everything laid down in the brain will be colored by the horrible things the child has already seen. As one who carried my infants around to stimulate their little brains, I tend to believe that what they see is important.

bfearn May 6th, 2008 7:21 pm

We don’t seem to talk about why torture is ‘necessary’ according to American leaders who support those actions. They order torture to get information from ‘enemies’. Those ‘enemies’ seek to harm America. They do that because America has harmed them, supported dictatorships, overthrown their governments, stolen their resources, invaded their homelands, killed their countrymen.
So the end of torture is easy, stop creating enemies! Torture simply keeps the violence going.
www.amoralamerica.info

Rebel Farmer May 6th, 2008 7:25 pm

Hi Greener! Sorry to hear that you got desensitized. I grew up pretty poor, and when the TV (an old round screen Hoffman) broke in the early 60’s, we couldn’t afford to replace it. When my kids were growing up, our TVs broke on a regular basis. Nobody was addicted, so it didn’t really matter much. As a result, neither of my kids watch TV even now (they are in their 40’s), and neither do the grand kids. This must make our family pretty weird. Probably why I can’t figure out what is going on with the sheeple or how they got that way. Oh well.

snydly May 6th, 2008 7:31 pm

Scene: cold block room w/single light bulb. CIA interrogation room. An Arab being waterboarded. The agent pouring the water says, “OK, Abdul, I’m gonna ask you one more time—Who set up 9/11?”. Abdul: “blubDickblubblub blubCheneyblubblub”. Second agent with a clip board, to a third rookie agent with the video camera: “Eh, that’s what they all say the first few times…”.
The little mouse in the corner says, “Must be a conspiracy”….
There is a very dark and sad, but plausible case to be made that the secrecy and torturing is not to make the war less dangerous or shorter for our troops or safeguard national security, but to cover up, ferret out and neutralize evidence or anyone who has first hand knowledge of who the perps are and how the whole thing unfolded. It may also be plausible that OBL is still free because he has arranged one of those “if anything happens to me” letters as in spy v. spy movies. Can anyone come up with a way to connect the dots that is less painful to patriotic sensibilities? I hope so, because thoughts of such deep treachery and treason are hard to bear.
Basic question: What would various perps do if they had the means and motive after pulling off 9/11? There are plenty of detectives, criminologists and psychologists out there who could speak to this conjecture. Let’s hear from some.
peace

The Public Record May 6th, 2008 8:19 pm

http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?view=article&catid=6%3Alaw&id=9%3Athe-bush-teams-geneva-hypocrisy&option=com_content&Itemid=9

The Bush Administration’s Geneva Hypocrisy

Newly released U.S. government documents, detailing how Bush administration officials punched legalistic holes in the Geneva Convention’s protections of war captives, stand in stark contrast to the outrage some of the same officials expressed in the first week of the Iraq War when Iraqi TV interviewed several captured American soldiers.

Then, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, President George W. Bush and other administration officials orchestrated a chorus of outrage, citing those TV scenes as proof of the Iraq’s government contempt for international law in general and the Geneva Convention in particular.

“It is a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention to humiliate and abuse prisoners of war or to harm them in any way. As President Bush said yesterday, those who harm POWs will be found and punished as war criminals,” Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said on March 24, 2003.

That same day, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the BBC that “the Geneva Convention is very clear on the rules for treating prisoners. They’re not supposed to be tortured or abused, they’re not supposed to be intimidated, they’re not supposed to be made public displays of humiliation or insult, and we’re going to be in a position to hold those Iraqi officials who are mistreating our prisoners accountable, and they’ve got to stop.”

Rebel Farmer May 6th, 2008 8:31 pm

The Public Record: Great information! Only problem is, these a**holes also said that “America doesn’t torture”. We haven’t made much headway even though they have now admitted that they torture and that it was discussed and approved at the highest levels of this god forsaken government. So, where do we go from here? Is anybody listening? Is anybody connecting the dots? Does anybody care?

Doom n Gloom May 6th, 2008 10:34 pm

Oh good, another show investigation.

estebandido May 7th, 2008 1:39 am

Things are bleak but things are changing. Remember that Chile’s Pinochet was brought down finally, for his murders and torturing. No one thought it could happen, he had made absolutely sure that he was safe…but the good guys actually nailed him.

Keep the faith and keep remembering what it will take to reorient our so called civilization ….the computer age just might give us the key we’ve been seeking…gimme mo info….

legmanlar May 7th, 2008 2:14 am

‘Torture’ is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently the people who frequent this site have no stomach for getting info out of those who would target the readers of these postings before any others. Those people hate Liberal Ideology, except where it undermines America.

I’ll make you a deal. You help me stop REAL torture- Partial birth abortion- and I’ll help you stop torture. (Of which waterboarding is not).

KCThompson May 7th, 2008 9:18 am

“rationalization is giving a socially acceptable reason for socially unacceptable behavior, and socially unacceptable behavior is a form of insanity.”

pg. 550

Galen May 7th, 2008 10:32 am

Legmanlar- I would surmise from the concealed venom in your post that you are a mainstream Protestant Christian who receives most of their information from the Corporate Main Stream Media.

As for waterboarding being ‘not real torture, I suggest you look up the article written by a man who used to PERFORM the act. HE called it torture. Amnesty International calls it torture.

Waterboarding is also know by another technical term. Controlled Drowning.

The only people who deny that it is torture are the armchair warriors who endorse it, but have never seen it performed on anyone, or who have not had it done to them.

Galen May 7th, 2008 10:55 am

Also for Legmanlar-
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn05062008.html

Choke on it.

angel2shine May 7th, 2008 2:37 pm

legmanie wrote.. “I’ll make you a deal. You help me stop REAL torture- Partial birth abortion- and I’ll help you stop torture. (Of which waterboarding is not).”

Partial birth abortion is usually preformed to save the life or health of the mother, usually when the weaken womb bursts and leaves a living baby free in the body cavity of its mother, where it could kick her heart, twist her kidneys, ect.. resulting in her pain and death, it is painless to the baby as doctors know a baby in pain will kick harder, It is one of those things that sadly on occasion must be done, and usually returns the mother alive and well to tend to her family, and have a funeral for the baby only. The CHOICE should be between the Doctor and the family.

Now as to ‘Waterboarding,’ simular techniques were preformed during the spanish inquision.. all history books called it torture and ‘The Dark Ages’.

As a child, I nearly drounded once, and you don’t know the pain of water soaked lungs like I do, every breath is torture, for hours. It takes days to get over it, and I wished that I had not been saved. I didn’t think the pain would ever stop, Waterboarding is torture! and it does not become us.

jlyford May 7th, 2008 4:26 pm

Once we’ve excused Yoo, Addington, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush, can we also pardon Hitler’s doctors for their live dissections and other human experimentation?

Like our leaders, they too shared a purpose higher than mere “humiliation or abuse”.

legmanlar May 8th, 2008 3:05 am

To Galen- “I would surmise from the concealed venom…” Wow, are you the Son of Kreskin? There was no venom other than that of your sad little mind. I’m referring to you apologists who believe if you say America bad-terrorists poor mistreated souls that they won’t slit your throat given the chance. And by the way what did Amnesty International say about Saddam’s torture and his sons’ rape and murder? They were strangely silent. I guess they also believe they’ll be left alone, too.

And Angel12yearold- If believing what you wrote makes you feel better- so be it. It’s not always (almost never) about what you described.

skippyagogo41 May 8th, 2008 9:56 am

legmanlar;
Amnesty Int’l condemned Sadamn’s regime of torture. Stop listening to Rush, he’s still wrong. Wouldn’t you want to kill the SOB who tortured your wife, child or if you yourself were tortured? Wouldn’t you fight if it was your country that had been invaded? Don’t you think that even the most die-hard Bush hating liberal would fight for America if the UN actually invaded the usa like the world invaded Nazi Germany 60 years ago?

For a nation whose leaders claim to be Christian why don’t you ever turn the other cheek? Why don’t you treat the poor as you would treat the son of god? Why don’t you respect the will of people to live under the form of government that they prefer rather than the form of gov’t that US corportations prefer?

legmanlar May 12th, 2008 3:48 am

Skippy-
AI didn’t do Sh*t!- No Liberals wouldn’t fight for sh*t- They’d just look for someone to blame and blog about it. The detainees were being coerced into giving up info to protect our interests,(yes, yours too ). You can’t even capitalize the name of God, so I don’t think His Son means much to you, either. And it wasn’t a form of Government they PREFERRED. It was the dictatorship of which they were under the thumb.

curmudgeon99 May 6th, 2008 2:25 pm

This is a piece that won’t see the light of day in the American MSM.

And it is 100% true and germane.

The uneducated majority have been frightened into ‘going along’ with the illegal and immoral torture policies.
kloro May 6th, 2008 2:37 pm

“And we seem to be OK with it.” speak for self. there are those aware of their heritage.
militantliberal May 6th, 2008 2:44 pm

Torturing terrorist suspects or other enemies of the state is too obviously righteously patriotic to be questioned. We need to know more about which Wright sermons Obama attended and about happens at Britney’s custody hearing.
elmysterio May 6th, 2008 3:28 pm

militantliberal You are so right… Wright and Britney are weapons of mass distraction aimed at keeping the public in the dark about the crime family known as the US government. The sad part is that most people fall for it.
OldBadgertoo May 6th, 2008 3:45 pm

What is so often neglected is the popular support for torture, which politicians are very well aware of. When tv heroes like Jack Bauer are applauded for their willingness to murder and torment, when psychopaths like Dexter are turned into heroes because they “only kill killers”, you know you’re facing a lust for blood in the general population which only war and torture can sate. Though quite possibly the current flows the other way, and the state of mind which welcomes such vicarious vengeance has been deliberately fostered in order to support our so-called civilisation’s wars.
Arvy May 6th, 2008 4:10 pm

Let’s bracket the slippery language of the statement — “threatened”, “reasonable” and “outrageousness” are all promiscuous words easily parsed for convenience’s sake — and look at the US government’s not so muted reliance on intention, something that has long been a component of its rationalisation for using “coercive interrogation” (which has evidently become the American English pronunciation of the word “torture”).

It has long been a component of US rationalisation for most of its outrageous acts. It is, for example, virtually the only component of US “liberation” that distinguishes it from the “terrorism” of its opponents — apart from sheer scale, that is.

Unfortunately for USans, their (allegedly) well-meaning intentions are often difficult to discern amongst all that “depleted” uranium, napalm, “whiskey pete” and cluster bombs. And it’s doubly difficult to find much solace in “liberation” that very often seems worse than its antecedent.

In the circumstances, it’s small wonder that most people throughout the world prefer to avoid any such “well intentioned” assistance and tend to resist it when thrust upon them.
Galen May 6th, 2008 4:21 pm

It’s only torture when it’s done to John McCain…
frank1569 May 6th, 2008 4:53 pm

Someone might wanna ask McCain about that, actually - if the North Vietnamese believed he had information that they needed to “protect the homeland,” would he agree that his being tortured was legal and moral?

And let’s not forget that “we” pay to watch torture, whether it’s “24″ or the “Saw” torture-tainment series, which has already grossed over $500M, with parts V and VI on the way. Another example - “The Passion of the Christ” was basically a total torture flick and it grossed over $370M. Wonder why we don’t even blink when we hear about some “foreigner” being water-tortured…

Meanwhile, looks like this one has vanished forever: “In light of the national debate about the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) destruction of video recordings, the report proves that the two CIA tapes that were destroyed were only a tiny fraction of perhaps 24,000 recorded interrogations.”

That’s approximately 30 “interrogations” per “detainee”…
eileenfleming May 6th, 2008 4:59 pm

Only those that loose touch with their own humanity are able to torture another being and Military Occupation is at the root of much evil.

In January 2006, while I was in Ramallah, I met with Ala Jaradat, spokesperson for ADAMEER which is Arabic for conscience.

He told me a lot, but what hit me the hardest was when he connected some dots:

“The methods and photos from Abu Grahib and Guantanamo were no shock to any Palestinian who had been in prison between 1967 and the ‘80’s. All the methods used in Abu Grahib were normal procedures against Palestinians.”

Talking about five years of military occupation in Iraq without understanding the 40 years in Palestine is limited thinking.

Eileen Fleming, Reporter and Editor WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author “Keep Hope Alive” and “Memoirs of a Nice Irish American ‘Girl’s’ Life in Occupied Territory”
Producer “30 Minutes With Vanunu” and “13 Minutes with Vanunu”
elmysterio May 6th, 2008 5:20 pm

Galen Said: It’s only torture when it’s done to John McCain…

The question remains whether or not McCain was ACTUALLY tortured. From accounts that I have read, it seems like John rolled over for his captures pretty quickly and easily, earning himself the codename “songbird”… Therefore, do we know FOR SURE that Mr. McCain was in fact, tortured?
Rebel Farmer May 6th, 2008 5:34 pm

Eileen Fleming: Thanks for the perspective from Palestine!

The point is that America has ALWAYS tortured in the name of its interests. What is happening now has been happening for a hundred years or more. The only difference is that the powers that be have decided that the American public is now willing to accept public knowledge and responsibility for the torture. The powers that be have now instiled enough fear in the American people that they are willing to give up their freedoms AND their morality. Mission accomplished.
JB Cracker May 6th, 2008 5:34 pm

curmudgeon99 says,

“The uneducated majority have been frightened into ‘going along’ with the illegal and immoral torture policies.”

Lately myself, I’m concerned more about the educated minority of collaborateurs who continue to run this pathetically selfish show.

For most of us today, anyone who currently profits(?) from nearly any so-called legitimate(?) career activity, sanctioned by such a transparently fake, global(?) economy needs to take a very hard look in the mirror and connect the dots.

Simply because some people advocate slow suicide for them self and all of their loved ones, am I really obligated to support that decision?

Is humanity’s unwavering belief in our, surely seen by now, lifestyle(?) choice of self-destruction really necessary or merely a lack of imagination when considering the facts? Is it truly impossible to discover a better way for human beings to coexist on this planet than what is happening?

No, I refuse to call it a reasonable response to human nature, the human condition, when there is so obviously nothing at all natural about it. Acknowledge it to be simply a profound lack of imagination, an ability only most recently not promoted by society or taught in school anymore; unless of course to serve as handmaiden to it’s own destruction.

So if you must fear, fear those you see among us who know all this but continue to say and do nothing. They are who block our way forward, who colonize and then profit from the imagination of all of us; not the “uneducated majority.”

Find peace in your own creativity, and share it.
Rebel Farmer May 6th, 2008 5:47 pm

A little off topic, but related to some of the “24″ comments.

I remember seeing a movie called “Missouri Breaks” with Marlen Brando (?) back in the mid 70’s. I had to leave the theater because I became nauseated by the violence. I literally was going to throw up. The theater even offered to give me back my money for my ticket.

When I viewed films in school of the Nazi atrocities, I didn’t get nauseated. I was outraged. I knew that this violence and torture was morally wrong. Nobody had to define torture for me. I just knew it instinctively.

When I was growing up, my mother would not let me go see Janet Leigh in the shower scene. Everyone else I knew was aware of the Bate’s Motel. My mother knew that it wasn’t good for young people to see this kind of violence in this venue. That it was unhealthy for me in some way.

So what has changed? I haven’t. And my mother is dead. I still cannot watch any movie or news item that depicts violence without nausea or outrage. So what has made it possible in modern America that this human instinct has been dulled or eliminated?

I truely don’t know the answer.
Rebel Farmer May 6th, 2008 5:57 pm

JB Cracker: Very wise observation.

Something else I had drummed into me as a kid: “The ends nver justify the means”. I think this was usually attached to something related to communism, but it always stuck with me as a general rule. Like the Golden Rule. Once somebody said to me “You don’t care about money”. I thought about that, and replied “I like money well enough. I find it rather useful. But I also care about where it comes from and how I get it”. I guess the point is that because I cared about how I got money, it was judged that I didn’t care about money. I think there is something deep to discover here, I just don’t know exactly what it is.
greenerthanthou May 6th, 2008 6:33 pm

Yeah, Rebel Farmer, my dad wouldn’t let me watch horror movies or violent movies. I had the same experience when I went to see a Sam Peckinpah movie. It had a Bob Dylan song, Knocking on heaven’s Door, or something. I thought it would be OK, but I had to leave because it made me sick.

However. I now can watch those kind of movies. I have been desensitized. That is the point of these movies, I believe. We are bathed in violence and we are taught that violence is the correct answer to any problem. I remember seeing a movie with Harrison Ford where he’s on an Amish farm and the bad guys come and all the Amish come unarmed to stand with him. Cool, I thought. But, no. There had to be gunplay and violence to resolve the issue.

Americans have been subjected to massive propaganda. It works.

I think it’s worse for a child to see these images. Their developing brain will then have the images in it. Everything laid down in the brain will be colored by the horrible things the child has already seen. As one who carried my infants around to stimulate their little brains, I tend to believe that what they see is important.
bfearn May 6th, 2008 7:21 pm

We don’t seem to talk about why torture is ‘necessary’ according to American leaders who support those actions. They order torture to get information from ‘enemies’. Those ‘enemies’ seek to harm America. They do that because America has harmed them, supported dictatorships, overthrown their governments, stolen their resources, invaded their homelands, killed their countrymen.
So the end of torture is easy, stop creating enemies! Torture simply keeps the violence going.
www.amoralamerica.info
Rebel Farmer May 6th, 2008 7:25 pm

Hi Greener! Sorry to hear that you got desensitized. I grew up pretty poor, and when the TV (an old round screen Hoffman) broke in the early 60’s, we couldn’t afford to replace it. When my kids were growing up, our TVs broke on a regular basis. Nobody was addicted, so it didn’t really matter much. As a result, neither of my kids watch TV even now (they are in their 40’s), and neither do the grand kids. This must make our family pretty weird. Probably why I can’t figure out what is going on with the sheeple or how they got that way. Oh well.
snydly May 6th, 2008 7:31 pm

Scene: cold block room w/single light bulb. CIA interrogation room. An Arab being waterboarded. The agent pouring the water says, “OK, Abdul, I’m gonna ask you one more time—Who set up 9/11?”. Abdul: “blubDickblubblub blubCheneyblubblub”. Second agent with a clip board, to a third rookie agent with the video camera: “Eh, that’s what they all say the first few times…”.
The little mouse in the corner says, “Must be a conspiracy”….
There is a very dark and sad, but plausible case to be made that the secrecy and torturing is not to make the war less dangerous or shorter for our troops or safeguard national security, but to cover up, ferret out and neutralize evidence or anyone who has first hand knowledge of who the perps are and how the whole thing unfolded. It may also be plausible that OBL is still free because he has arranged one of those “if anything happens to me” letters as in spy v. spy movies. Can anyone come up with a way to connect the dots that is less painful to patriotic sensibilities? I hope so, because thoughts of such deep treachery and treason are hard to bear.
Basic question: What would various perps do if they had the means and motive after pulling off 9/11? There are plenty of detectives, criminologists and psychologists out there who could speak to this conjecture. Let’s hear from some.
peace
The Public Record May 6th, 2008 8:19 pm

http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?view=article&catid=6%3Alaw&id=9%3Athe-bush-teams-geneva-hypocrisy&option=com_content&Itemid=9

The Bush Administration’s Geneva Hypocrisy

Newly released U.S. government documents, detailing how Bush administration officials punched legalistic holes in the Geneva Convention’s protections of war captives, stand in stark contrast to the outrage some of the same officials expressed in the first week of the Iraq War when Iraqi TV interviewed several captured American soldiers.

Then, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, President George W. Bush and other administration officials orchestrated a chorus of outrage, citing those TV scenes as proof of the Iraq’s government contempt for international law in general and the Geneva Convention in particular.

“It is a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention to humiliate and abuse prisoners of war or to harm them in any way. As President Bush said yesterday, those who harm POWs will be found and punished as war criminals,” Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said on March 24, 2003.

That same day, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the BBC that “the Geneva Convention is very clear on the rules for treating prisoners. They’re not supposed to be tortured or abused, they’re not supposed to be intimidated, they’re not supposed to be made public displays of humiliation or insult, and we’re going to be in a position to hold those Iraqi officials who are mistreating our prisoners accountable, and they’ve got to stop.”
Rebel Farmer May 6th, 2008 8:31 pm

The Public Record: Great information! Only problem is, these a**holes also said that “America doesn’t torture”. We haven’t made much headway even though they have now admitted that they torture and that it was discussed and approved at the highest levels of this god forsaken government. So, where do we go from here? Is anybody listening? Is anybody connecting the dots? Does anybody care?
Doom n Gloom May 6th, 2008 10:34 pm

Oh good, another show investigation.
estebandido May 7th, 2008 1:39 am

Things are bleak but things are changing. Remember that Chile’s Pinochet was brought down finally, for his murders and torturing. No one thought it could happen, he had made absolutely sure that he was safe…but the good guys actually nailed him.

Keep the faith and keep remembering what it will take to reorient our so called civilization ….the computer age just might give us the key we’ve been seeking…gimme mo info….
legmanlar May 7th, 2008 2:14 am

‘Torture’ is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently the people who frequent this site have no stomach for getting info out of those who would target the readers of these postings before any others. Those people hate Liberal Ideology, except where it undermines America.

I’ll make you a deal. You help me stop REAL torture- Partial birth abortion- and I’ll help you stop torture. (Of which waterboarding is not).
KCThompson May 7th, 2008 9:18 am

“rationalization is giving a socially acceptable reason for socially unacceptable behavior, and socially unacceptable behavior is a form of insanity.”

pg. 550
Galen May 7th, 2008 10:32 am

Legmanlar- I would surmise from the concealed venom in your post that you are a mainstream Protestant Christian who receives most of their information from the Corporate Main Stream Media.

As for waterboarding being ‘not real torture, I suggest you look up the article written by a man who used to PERFORM the act. HE called it torture. Amnesty International calls it torture.

Waterboarding is also know by another technical term. Controlled Drowning.

The only people who deny that it is torture are the armchair warriors who endorse it, but have never seen it performed on anyone, or who have not had it done to them.
Galen May 7th, 2008 10:55 am

Also for Legmanlar-
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn05062008.html

Choke on it.
angel2shine May 7th, 2008 2:37 pm

legmanie wrote.. “I’ll make you a deal. You help me stop REAL torture- Partial birth abortion- and I’ll help you stop torture. (Of which waterboarding is not).”

Partial birth abortion is usually preformed to save the life or health of the mother, usually when the weaken womb bursts and leaves a living baby free in the body cavity of its mother, where it could kick her heart, twist her kidneys, ect.. resulting in her pain and death, it is painless to the baby as doctors know a baby in pain will kick harder, It is one of those things that sadly on occasion must be done, and usually returns the mother alive and well to tend to her family, and have a funeral for the baby only. The CHOICE should be between the Doctor and the family.

Now as to ‘Waterboarding,’ simular techniques were preformed during the spanish inquision.. all history books called it torture and ‘The Dark Ages’.

As a child, I nearly drounded once, and you don’t know the pain of water soaked lungs like I do, every breath is torture, for hours. It takes days to get over it, and I wished that I had not been saved. I didn’t think the pain would ever stop, Waterboarding is torture! and it does not become us.
jlyford May 7th, 2008 4:26 pm

Once we’ve excused Yoo, Addington, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush, can we also pardon Hitler’s doctors for their live dissections and other human experimentation?

Like our leaders, they too shared a purpose higher than mere “humiliation or abuse”.
legmanlar May 8th, 2008 3:05 am

To Galen- “I would surmise from the concealed venom…” Wow, are you the Son of Kreskin? There was no venom other than that of your sad little mind. I’m referring to you apologists who believe if you say America bad-terrorists poor mistreated souls that they won’t slit your throat given the chance. And by the way what did Amnesty International say about Saddam’s torture and his sons’ rape and murder? They were strangely silent. I guess they also believe they’ll be left alone, too.

And Angel12yearold- If believing what you wrote makes you feel better- so be it. It’s not always (almost never) about what you described.
skippyagogo41 May 8th, 2008 9:56 am

legmanlar;
Amnesty Int’l condemned Sadamn’s regime of torture. Stop listening to Rush, he’s still wrong. Wouldn’t you want to kill the SOB who tortured your wife, child or if you yourself were tortured? Wouldn’t you fight if it was your country that had been invaded? Don’t you think that even the most die-hard Bush hating liberal would fight for America if the UN actually invaded the usa like the world invaded Nazi Germany 60 years ago?

For a nation whose leaders claim to be Christian why don’t you ever turn the other cheek? Why don’t you treat the poor as you would treat the son of god? Why don’t you respect the will of people to live under the form of government that they prefer rather than the form of gov’t that US corportations prefer?
legmanlar May 12th, 2008 3:48 am

Skippy-
AI didn’t do Sh*t!- No Liberals wouldn’t fight for sh*t- They’d just look for someone to blame and blog about it. The detainees were being coerced into giving up info to protect our interests,(yes, yours too ). You can’t even capitalize the name of God, so I don’t think His Son means much to you, either. And it wasn’t a form of Government they PREFERRED. It was the dictatorship of which they were under the thumb.

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)